Out on a P6,000 bail, Carlos Celdran is facing charges on “offending religious feelings” under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code:
Considering what he did last Thursday, Art. 133 seems to apply. But upon closer look of the law, it appears Carlos may have a way out:
ART. 133. OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
1. Acts complained of were performed –
…….a. in a place devoted to religious feelings, or
…… b. during the celebration of any religious ceremony;
2. Acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful;
3. Offender is any person; and
4. There’s a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against religious tenet.
Carlos’ act obviously satisfied the first three elements, but possibly not the fourth. If all elements are to be present in order for the act to qualify for Art. 133, notice that Element #4 has actually two parts, namely:
1. There’s a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful
2. Directed against religious tenet
If those two also need to be present at the same time (meaning the 4th element should be taken as a whole), then Carlos may have a way out because he did not direct his actions towards religious tenet (practice, dogma or ritual) but towards the Church’s meddling in government affairs.
Assuming there was “deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful” (and I think even this is debatable), the act was not directed against religious practice, dogma, or ritual, but on the political practice of the CBCP. Carlos never criticized the Catholic dogma on unborn life, but rather the CBCP’s meddling in government affairs. He did not say that Humanae Vitae is antiquated or fallible; he merely shouted “Damaso,” “Stop interfering in politics,” and “Stop meddling in government.”
And with that I think Carlos should not be charged with Offending Religious Feelings.
dapat ikulong ang mga teachers na magsasabi in front of his students with different religion na “exempted ang sumimba!” kaso alam nyo na… yung iba eh di kasali.. “walang pasok kasi feast of…. ” at dahil may celebration minsan sa iba, hirap makiusap yan sa teacher na pagbigyan… nakakaoffend! hmm…
[…] Offending Religious Feelings […]
I think this case has yet to be dismissed, right?? Celdran is still on trial?
The fuck is CBCP whining about their feelings? The hypocrites should look at their sexual abuse cases first. For old loony men they still have a lot of growing up to do.
First of all, why does that law exist? Second, I'm a Christian and I am *not* offended by Celdran's actions. Namely because the Church brought it on themselves. If they wanted political power, they have to face all the usual problems of politics. That includes protesters (peaceful or otherwise) like Celdran.
Either the Church stop complaining or they stop dabbling where they don't belong.
the archaic blasphemy law you are referring to ensures religious liberty. it protects everyone to worship in peace. like what benjamin vallejo jr said in his comment, the archaic penal provision may protect the expression of atheistic belief. for conversation's sake, it ensures that should you or anyone or an atheist group or freethinkers who wish to congregate will be able to without being disrupted, without some "fundamentalist" attempting to offend you or the group.
No, that's what free speech is.
Free speech guarantees that I can say my opinion. A blasphemy law will get me arrested if I say anything against a religion, or say anything that its leaders deem "blasphemous."
And besides, "religious liberty" does not mean that beliefs are free of criticism under the context of free speech. They are free to answer their critics, but they are NOT free to have them arrested.
[for conversation's sake, it ensures that should you or anyone or an atheist group or freethinkers who wish to congregate will be able to without being disrupted, without some "fundamentalist" attempting to offend you or the group. ]
You've never been to a skeptic's gathering, have you? Here's a clue – we don't have people arrested or threatened with legal action just because they march up and say that we're all going to hell 😉
Do learn to tell the difference between blasphemy laws and free speech Reynor – you can't expect us to hold your hand when the grownups start talking about matters like this 🙂
Here's another classic example of why we don't need a blasphemy law: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/11/christia…
Granted the RCC won't resort to death sentences, but I'm sure you get the point.
This archaic blasphemy law has to be revoked. It is clearly an infringement to the right of free speech.
Isn't it a religious tenet of the Church that abortion is wrong? The Church's meddling in politics might simply be a logical extension of this religious tenet.
Not logical, in the sense that their meddling also affects nonbelievers, and others in RP who do not necessarily follow their set of morals.
XIII, to answer that I refer you to zaurah's comment above <a href="http://(https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/10/02/offending-religious-feelings/#IDComment102275129):” target=”_blank”>(https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/10/02/offending-religious-feelings/#IDComment102275129):
"The crime is only unjust vexation when the act is not directed to the religious belief itself"
Religious belief itself. Doesn't give much room for a logical extension, does it?
Hurting religious FEELINGS? Wow … this country sure needs to grow up.
Careful! that archaic penal provision may protect the expression of Atheistic belief!
Nice cover. Saktong-sakto sa pagkakagamit kay Negral!
This is the jurisprudence citing article 133 of the RPC as an inappropriate provision for the acts committed by the offender:
Pp.vs. Nanoy- 69 OG. 8043
Facts: drunk person entered with uplifted hands while the congregation of the Assembly of God is having its afternoon session and then grabbed the song leader.
Ruling: The crime is only unjust vexation when the act is not directed to the religious belief itself and there is no intention of causing so serious a disturbance as to interrupt a religious ceremony.
references: http://www.docshare.com/doc/200284/Crim-2-Santiag… http://www.scribd.com/doc/33337781/UP08-Crim2
Is this the only ruling on a case involving Article 133? The facts of this case are very dissimilar to the Celdran case.
Are there any lawyers here? Maybe this provision of the penal code should be challeged in the Supreme Court. Win or lose, or even if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case(which is likely), the act of filing it will be a great symbolic act of challenging religion's charmed status in the Philippines.
I agree. Article III Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution states that "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion", so the law on Offending Religious Feelings seems unconstitutional.
Fact is that law (Art.133) has been there earlier than any of our constitutions, barring Malolos. Its been there at the very start, since August 1, 1932. Our earlest recognized constitution, the Commonwealth, was promulgated in 1935
If you have been inside of a courthouse, Hearings start with a "Supreme Court Prayer" (its got a poster in most courtrooms). If the RCC will be minded to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law, I dread to imagine what will happen to his case if it gets raffled off to the sala of a catholic judge. Any direct or cross-examination of Celdran might be found by said judge as notoriously offensive to religious feelings, especially his. Hence, personal bias will take over.
I guess with that scene playing out in my mind, the only way for Celdran is if the RCC drops all charges.
Just thinking.
Tamà. Maaari nga siyáng macalusót. Yun ay cung dapat casama LAHÁT ng elemento ng nasabing artículo. Ang problema ay itó: ¿paano cung sapát na ang cahit isáng elemento sa nasabing artículo upang casuhan si Celdrán sa pambabastós niyá sa loób ng iglesia? Capág ganoón ang maguiguing basehán, tiac na ualá siang lusót.
@Pepe: Kung sapat na ang ISANG elemento upang makasuhan si Celdran, lahat ng tao ay pwede din kasuhan ng "offending religious feelings" kasi ang pangatlong elemento ay "Offender is ANY person". 🙂
and i thought "religious feelings" is synonymous with pedophiliac urge/lust.
So technically, does that mean a Muslim woman wearing a Burkha can be arrested for sitting in at a Catholic mass?
FUCK THAT SHIT
FEELINGS DON'T NEED PROTECTION
PEOPLE DO
FUCKING THIS!
People can't criticize religion, but religious groups can condemn people/acts they deem inappropriate (based on their moral standards)? Why should religion always be an exception?
The term "offending religious feelings" is very vague. To tell you the truth, I think I do this everyday. haha. Then I must go to jail. Haha.
I offend my mom's religious feelings almost everyday. I hope she doesn't send me to jail. 🙁 ;P
The most that a case can be completely charged against him would be malicious mischief, nothing else. Let's let them push this case (just like the way they try to butt into every political issue they want) and see where it goes: right in the trash. 😀
Oh puh-leeeeze… the CBCP cant take what it dishes out?
If the church can get away with the sneaky double-speak they uses against gay people… they don't 'hate gay people', they only 'hate the deed' then why can't Carlos use the same escape-clause? He didn't diss the religion itself, he only dissed the actions of the CBCP on political meddling.
Cant the CBCP take the heat when the tables are finally turned on them?
Lusot!